Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Customs

Detention under COFEPOSA - The Court has a duty to see whether the non supply of any document is in any way prejudicial to the case of the detenu – High Court order quashing detention set aside – Whether detenu is to be picked up for preventive detention after a decade to be decided by State – Supreme Court

A person is detained under COFEPOSA; his detention is quashed by High Court; State is in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order. More than 9 years have elapsed. Should the detenu be picked up now?

Service Tax

Distribution of CENVAT Credit of Input Services by Input Service Distributor (Head Office) to unit engaged in the manufacture of goods which are captively consumed by other establishments – Tribunal grants waiver of pre-deposit and remands matter

DISTRIBUTING LITIGATION: Admittedly, when the fact remains that Revenue does not find any fault with the CENVAT Credit per se as availed by the Head Office [Input Service Distributor] inasmuch as it does not allege contravention of the provisions of rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 or for that matter any contravention of rule 7 of the CCR, 2004, aren't such objections avoidable?

Income Tax

There is no requirement of profits being generated out of actual business of shipping operations. Had it been the case there was no need to amend the Section vide Finance Act, 1995 and restrict the benefits to 50% of profits arising from only shipping business.

THERE is no such requirement that the assessee in order to be eligible for deduction has to actually operate ships or that the amount in respect of which deduction is to be allowed and credited to the reserved account, had to be the income earned from shipping business. In the instant case, the assessee was a company formed and registered in India and one of its main objects was to carry on the business of operations of ships. The company had entered into agreement for purchase of ships in the relevant assessment year i.e.1994-95 and actually operated them in the assessment year 1995-96.

Central Excise

When Show Cause notice alleging suppression of facts was issued in year 2000 there was no way that a certificate under rule 57E could be denied in year 1998 - Tribunal rejects Revenue appeal

IT is not understandable as to how a certificate under Rule 57E can be denied in 1998, when the show cause notice against which duty payment was made never alleged suppression of facts and such allegations have been made for the first time in the show cause notice issued in the year 2000. Clearly, such order is not maintainable.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements